Bug#930679: Please add overridable tag for not using dh sequencer

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Sam,

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:27 AM Sam Hartman  wrote:
>
> Based on that I think we'd like lintian to detect when dh is not used
> and allow maintainers to override the tag if they have an adequate
> justification for not using dh.

I tentatively added a new tag called 'no-dh-sequencer' to Lintian.
More details are available here:


https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/d0b5b337a61e3ae17e2c7b22621fdd53a9932fad

> It would be even better to detect some of the adequate justifications
> automatically like Haskell packages.

I tried to exclude Haskell packages. The mechanism can probably be improved.

> I'm opening this bug to track the issue.

I kept the bug open to invite further discussion.

As a side note, it was pretty hard to construct a test case. I hadn't
used anything other than dh since Joey wrote his blog post about
everyone's grandpa.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Bug#880475: marked as done (internal lintian shlib error running lintian -F on gcc-8-cross_1_amd64-changes)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:22:49 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line No internal error in development version of Lintian
has caused the Debian Bug report #880475,
regarding internal lintian shlib error running lintian -F on 
gcc-8-cross_1_amd64-changes
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
880475: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880475
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.57

$ lintian -F ../gcc-8-cross_1_amd64.changes 2>&1 | tee  ../log.lintian
Use of uninitialized value $val in split at
/usr/share/perl5/Lintian/Collect/Binary.pm line 423, <$_[...]> line 20151.
internal error: shlib usr/lib/gcc-cross/mips-linux-gnu/8/libgo.a(bzip2.o) not
found in package (should not happen!) at
/usr/share/lintian/checks/shared-libs.pm line 197.
internal error: cannot run shared-libs check on package
binary:gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu/8-20171031-1cross0/amd64
warning: skipping check of 
binary:gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu/8-20171031-1cross0/amd64
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Matthias,

> $ lintian -F ../gcc-8-cross_1_amd64.changes 2>&1 | tee  ../log.lintian
> Use of uninitialized value $val in split at
> /usr/share/perl5/Lintian/Collect/Binary.pm line 423, <$_[...]> line 20151.
> internal error: shlib usr/lib/gcc-cross/mips-linux-gnu/8/libgo.a(bzip2.o) not
> found in package (should not happen!) at
> /usr/share/lintian/checks/shared-libs.pm line 197.
> internal error: cannot run shared-libs check on package
> binary:gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu/8-20171031-1cross0/amd64
> warning: skipping check of 
> binary:gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu/8-20171031-1cross0/amd64

I found the binary package on snapshot.d.o. Lintian's development
version no longer crashes.

It produces this output:

$ frontend/lintian -I -E --pedantic
../bugs/readelf/gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu_8-20171031-1cross0_amd64.deb
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu:
cannot-check-whether-usr-share-doc-symlink-points-to-foreign-package
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: conflicts-with-version golang-go (<<
2:1.3.3-1ubuntu2)
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: hardening-no-bindnow usr/bin/mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-8
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: hardening-no-bindnow
usr/lib/gcc-cross/mips-linux-gnu/8/go1
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: hardening-no-fortify-functions
usr/bin/mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-8
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: hardening-no-fortify-functions
usr/lib/gcc-cross/mips-linux-gnu/8/go1
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/bin/mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-8 "Allow to" "Allow one to"
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/gcc-cross/mips-linux-gnu/8/go1 "Allow to" "Allow one to"
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/gcc-cross/mips-linux-gnu/8/go1 Regsitered Registered
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: spelling-error-in-binary ... use
--no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program)
I: gccgo-8-mips-linux-gnu: unused-override binary-from-other-architecture
N: 3 tags overridden (3 warnings)

I do not know how the issue was fixed. Over the past year I worked a
lot on collections, of which readelf is a part. In any event, Lintian
no longer produces an internal error.

This bug is fixed. Closing.

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#905617: marked as done (documentation or logic bug with "source-is-missing" check (+long lines))

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:45:46 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Tag no longer appears
has caused the Debian Bug report #905617,
regarding documentation or logic bug with "source-is-missing" check (+long 
lines)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
905617: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905617
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: lintian
Severity: normal

Dear all,

Package crispy-doom triggers the source-is-missing check

https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-games-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#crispy-doom

Specifically in relation to long lines, which is relevant I think

   README.Crispy.htm line length is 1308 characters (>512)
   README.Crispy.htm line length is 289 characters (>256)

This test did correctly catch the missing source issue, but I fixed it, at
least I tried to, using a mixture of the lintian documentation and reading the
source of the checks. I added the source at debian/missing-sources:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/crispy-doom/blob/master/debian/missing-sources/README.Crispy.htm.mediawiki
(for the file in question which is
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/crispy-doom/blob/master/README.Crispy.htm)

As far as I am able to tell, this should have addressed the issue, but the
check still fires. I've tried variations on the source filename (dropping the
.htm bit, dropping the .mediawiki bit, dropping both…) to no avail. Can someone
more expert than I with lintian's source please take a look: is either the test
wrong, or the docs? I tried and failed to trace the interaction between the
main source-is-missing check and the long-lines checks.

Thanks!


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.4
 APT prefers stable
 APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (600, 'unstable'), (500, 'oldstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.15.12-x86_64-linode105 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii  binutils  2.28-5
ii  bzip2 1.0.6-8.1
ii  diffstat  1.61-1+b1
ii  dpkg  1.18.24
ii  file  1:5.30-1+deb9u1
pn  gettext   
pn  intltool-debian   
pn  libapt-pkg-perl   
pn  libarchive-zip-perl   
pn  libclass-accessor-perl
pn  libclone-perl 
ii  libdpkg-perl  1.18.24
pn  libemail-valid-perl   
pn  libfile-basedir-perl  
pn  libipc-run-perl   
ii  liblist-moreutils-perl0.416-1+b1
pn  libparse-debianchangelog-perl 
ii  libperl5.24 [libdigest-sha-perl]  5.24.1-3+deb9u4
pn  libtext-levenshtein-perl  
ii  libtimedate-perl  2.3000-2
ii  liburi-perl   1.71-1
ii  libxml-simple-perl2.22-1
ii  libyaml-libyaml-perl  0.63-2
ii  man-db2.7.6.1-2
pn  patchutils
ii  perl  5.24.1-3+deb9u4
pn  t1utils   
ii  xz-utils  5.2.2-1.2+b1

Versions of packages lintian recommends:
ii  dpkg 1.18.24
pn  libperlio-gzip-perl  
ii  perl 5.24.1-3+deb9u4
ii  perl-modules-5.24 [libautodie-perl]  5.24.1-3+deb9u4

Versions of packages lintian suggests:
pn  binutils-multiarch 
ii  dpkg-dev   1.18.24
ii  libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3
pn  libtext-template-perl  

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Jonathan,

> Package crispy-doom triggers the source-is-missing check

It does not anymore. There have been ten uploads since the bug was
filed. It has been fixed.

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#749023: marked as done (false flag for duplicate-font-file in fonts-font-awesome-webfonts)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:28:39 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Tag no longer appears
has caused the Debian Bug report #749023,
regarding false flag for duplicate-font-file in fonts-font-awesome-webfonts
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
749023: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=749023
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
package: lintian
version: 2.5.22.1

When building ruby-font-awesome-rails source package I get the following
warning, but looking at fonts-font-awesome invalidates this claim.

W: fonts-font-awesome-webfonts: duplicate-font-file
usr/share/fonts/truetype/fonts-font-awesome-webfont/fontawesome-webfont.ttf
also in fonts-font-awesome

you can build the package from
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-font-awesome-rails.git
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Pirate,

> W: fonts-font-awesome-webfonts: duplicate-font-file
> usr/share/fonts/truetype/fonts-font-awesome-webfont/fontawesome-webfont.ttf
> also in fonts-font-awesome

Looks like the fonts now ship as part of the ruby rails asset
framework, which uses different installation paths. They no longer
trigger the tag.

>From packages.d.o:

/usr/share/ruby-font-awesome-rails/app/assets/fonts/FontAwesome.otf
/usr/share/ruby-font-awesome-rails/app/assets/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.ttf

> So it seems like a true positive to me that lintian would flag
> ruby-font-awesome-rails for also shipping it.

I also think a true positive was fixed.

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#759213: marked as done (lintian: quilt-build-dep-but-no-series-file triggered even if debian/patches/series exists (but empty))

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:58:06 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Tag no longer appears in test case
has caused the Debian Bug report #759213,
regarding lintian: quilt-build-dep-but-no-series-file triggered even if 
debian/patches/series exists (but empty)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
759213: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759213
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.25
Severity: normal

Dear Lintian Hackers,

for format 1.0 source packages which occassionally need patching, I
prefer to keep quilt in the build-dependencies and
debian/rules. I also keep an empty debian/patches/series file.

But lintian still claims quilt-build-dep-but-no-series-file despite it
is surely not true that there is no series file.

So please suppress this warning if debian/patches/series is empty as
this is a sign that this was done deliberately.

In case you think there still could be cases where an empty
debian/patches/series file is not on purpose, feel free to add a
separate, maybe pedantic-level warning about that.

TIA!

P.S.: Soon to be uploaded test case: t-prot 3.2-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (600, 'testing'), (110, 'experimental'), (109, 
'buildd-unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.15-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii  binutils   2.24.51.20140818-1
ii  bzip2  1.0.6-7
ii  diffstat   1.58-1
ii  file   1:5.19-1
ii  gettext0.19.2-1
ii  hardening-includes 2.5+nmu1
ii  intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1
ii  libapt-pkg-perl0.1.29+b2
ii  libarchive-zip-perl1.37-2
ii  libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1
ii  libclone-perl  0.37-1+b1
ii  libdpkg-perl   1.17.13
ii  libemail-valid-perl1.194-1
ii  libfile-basedir-perl   0.03-1
ii  libipc-run-perl0.92-1
ii  liblist-moreutils-perl 0.33-2+b1
ii  libparse-debianchangelog-perl  1.2.0-1
ii  libtext-levenshtein-perl   0.09-1
ii  libtimedate-perl   2.3000-2
ii  liburi-perl1.64-1
ii  man-db 2.6.7.1-1
ii  patchutils 0.3.3-1
ii  perl [libdigest-sha-perl]  5.20.0-4
ii  t1utils1.37-2

Versions of packages lintian recommends:
ii  libautodie-perl 2.25-1
ii  libperlio-gzip-perl 0.18-3+b1
ii  perl-modules [libautodie-perl]  5.20.0-4

Versions of packages lintian suggests:
pn  binutils-multiarch 
ii  dpkg-dev   1.17.13
ii  libhtml-parser-perl3.71-1+b2
ii  libtext-template-perl  1.46-1
ii  libyaml-perl   1.01-1
ii  xz-utils   5.1.1alpha+20120614-2

-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Axel,

> So please suppress this warning if debian/patches/series is empty as
> this is a sign that this was done deliberately.

Recent versions of t-prof no longer trigger the tag. The package was
converted to format '3.0 (quilt)'. I looked at t-prot_3.4-4.dsc.

> I suspect you
> suffer from a different problem that leads to the (empty) series file
> being excluded from the source package.

It did not seem worthwhile to examine historical package versions for
a bug that may not be in Lintian. Plus, other tools may also have been
fixed by now.

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#817068: marked as done (Wildcard in overrides no longer appears to work mid-string)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:27:10 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Issue seems resolved
has caused the Debian Bug report #817068,
regarding Wildcard in overrides no longer appears to work mid-string
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
817068: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=817068
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.42

Trying to overrides some source-is-missing false-positives in package
rkward, I note that wildcard matching no longer appears to work at
start or mid of string. I'm trying to override source is missing for

  E: rkward source: source-is-missing rkward/plugins/plots/box_plot.js
  line length is 257 characters (>256)
  E: rkward source: source-is-missing
  rkward/plugins/analysis/power/Poweranalysis.js line length is 538
  characters (>512)

(Note: The heuristics underlying source-is-missing have seen a number
of changes, apparently. Other versions have been flagging more .js
files in rkward).

I would expect the following three override variants to all do the
trick, but only variant 3 overrides, successfully:

1)
rkward source: source-is-missing *.js
2)
rkward source: source-is-missing rkward/plugins/*.js
3)
rkward source: source-is-missing rkward/plugins/*

Variant 2 used to work with some earlier version of lintian, current
around December 2015. I never used Variant 1 except for testing.

Regards
Thomas


pgpoMS03hSERW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Thomas,

> I see.
>
> Obviously, I was plain wrong, then, technically.

As far as I can tell, your issue was resolved.

> That said, I don't think this "line length ..." part is helpful to
> users, so I'd be in favor of removing it.

I find that information helpful (but do not like the verbosity)
because such tags often come together. The additional information
helps tell them apart. I have not gotten to that part of Lintian, but
it needs improvement. Please file another bug report if needed.

> Lintian user's manual might point out the fact that more than one
> wildcard can be used. Or perhaps I simply got derailed by
> the archeological tid-bit "The first wildcard support appeared in
> Lintian 2.0.0, which only allowed the wildcards in the very beginning
> or end. Version 2.5.0~rc4 extended this to allow wildcards any where in
> the additional info."

Personally, I think that still refers to one wildcard, but we are
working on the documentation. Merge requests are welcome.

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#898721: marked as done (lintian -- maybe false positive on description-starts-with-package-name)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:00:41 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Merge request with improved descriptions
has caused the Debian Bug report #898721,
regarding lintian -- maybe false positive on 
description-starts-with-package-name
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
898721: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=898721
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.82~bpo9+1
Severity: normal


I am not sure whether this is a good english expression, but if so, this is a 
false positive:

Description: base58 encode/decode: command-line interface



 lintian check for base58_1.0.0-1_all.deb 
N: 'base58 encode/decode' is a description of what the package does, not
N: a repeat of the package name.
O: base58: description-starts-with-package-name


 Thorsten
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Thorsten,

> I am not sure whether this is a good english expression, but if so, this is a 
> false positive:
>
> Description: base58 encode/decode: command-line interface

I am not sure either, but it sure does not read smoothly.

Someone already overrode the tag in your repo. As an alternative, I
wrote a merge request with improved descriptions. (I also removed the
override.) You can find everything here:

https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-base58/merge_requests/1

As a bonus, I also exended the long description. That cleaned out
another Lintian tag:

I: base58: extended-description-is-probably-too-short

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#903669: marked as done (lintian -- false positive on using-first-person-in-description)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:30:24 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Merge request for Lintian override
has caused the Debian Bug report #903669,
regarding lintian -- false positive on using-first-person-in-description
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
903669: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=903669
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.84
Severity: normal


The description of pyicloud contains the name of a software called "Find 
My iPhone".

So in this case "My" is not a using-first-person-in-description ...

 Thorsten
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Thorsten,

> The description of pyicloud contains the name of a software called "Find
> My iPhone".

I could not find any Lintian overrides in your package and filed a
merge request that will hide this tag. You can find everything here:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian-iot-team/pyicloud/merge_requests/1

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#720913: marked as done (lintian: package-contains-empty-directory false positives with triggers)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:03:52 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line No longer a problem
has caused the Debian Bug report #720913,
regarding lintian: package-contains-empty-directory false positives with 
triggers
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
720913: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=720913
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.15
Severity: minor

A notable example here is libreoffice that contains an empty dir and
installs a trigger for it[1].

~Niels

[1] 
http://lintian.debian.org/full/debian-openoff...@lists.debian.org.html#libreoffice

Look for empty dirs containing "autotext".
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

> [1] 
> http://lintian.debian.org/full/debian-openoff...@lists.debian.org.html#libreoffice
>
> Look for empty dirs containing "autotext".

Something changed since this bug was filed. Today, nothing matched the
string 'autotext'. The only tag for package-contains-empty-directory
was for the package libcppunit-doc:

usr/share/doc/libcppunit-doc/examples/msvc6/.

According to lintian.d.o, there are 2,266 similar tags [1], many of
them for modules, icons, cronjobs, backups, plugins, images, sounds
and defaults. Most are plausible names for empty directories. They do
not look like false positives.

This bug is not reproducible anymore. Closing.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-contains-empty-directory.html--- End Message ---

Bug#864997: DEP-5 copyright checker

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

[apologies i can't reply inline, very limited HTML mailer due to
seriously bandwidth/reliability-compromised internet connection]

hi felix,

violates my copyright by not containing my authorship assertion.  in
combination with no license file they should have contacted me for
permission to distribute.  whoops.  they *assumed* that because it was
in some other work that *was* licensed that it was "okay".

ironic, huh?

yes it's my work (entirely), yes, confirmed, GPLv2+ licensed.
("public domain" statements are *ineffective* due to the very annoying
Berne Convention).  the only modifications that people have made in
the copies that you can find online are to default paths (something
like that, it's been a while).

there is *one* annoying buglet in copyright_check.py: the search
mechanism i couldn't find a way to get it to go from the "root" level
using wildcards.  consequently, you have to use a copyright file that
specifies matches against files and subdirectories, *even if those are
wildcards*.

this is the primary reason why copyright_check.py doesn't "detect"
anything on lintian itself... because lintian's *own* copyright file
is a one-liner-wildcard-match.

a way to get round that would be to take one-liner-wildcard-match
files, do a sweep of the top-level root directory, and apply the
one-liner-wildcard-match to every single entry... *then* pass that
through to the algorithm.

no, god no, i'll never rewrite it in perl: perl is a "WORN" language -
write-once, read-never :)  i'm dead serious.  the readability is so
bad in perl, and the algorithm itself in copyright_check.py
sufficiently obtuse that it would be a... "inadviseable" combination
:)

those false positives look... err fun.  welcome to
arbitrary-pattern-matching against random human-written text: i used
qgrams to help with that, however, just as with when i was working for
Internet Security Systems and we were doing packet-pattern-recognition
it is *guaranteed* to be a losing battle that will *never* be
"complete" or "successful", please do bear that in mind, ok?

with many apologies, i have so much else going on: if you ping me
regularly and keep me interested in a conversation i will respond with
insights and so on (because i like copyright_check.py and the time it
saves), however i simply don't have time to take "initiative" if you
know what i mean, there.

thanks felix.

l.

On 12/14/19, Felix Lechner  wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
>> so i wrote a program called copyright_check.py which covers every single
>> possibility of what is correctly matched, what is incorrectly matched,
>> and what is missing.
>
> That's great! I have been looking for such a tool.
>
>> copies of the original program are being made and distributed
>> arbitrarily.
>> one such copy (which ironically violates copyright) is here:
>> https://fossies.org/dox/drizzle-7.2.4-alpha/copyright__check_8py_source.html
>>
>> one version may also be found here:
>> https://github.com/jaredly/pyjamas/blob/master/contrib/copyright_check.py
>
> Does it violate your copyright or someone else's? I see an assertion
> of your authorship only in the second file. Neither file shows license
> terms.
>
> For Debian's benefit, would you please reply with a statement that the
> program is solely your work? Please also attach a copy (not a link) or
> alternatively, a pointer to a repository under your control. The copy
> you send must further include the terms of your DFSG-compliant license
> (preferably GPL-2+, which would be like Lintian) or a statement
> placing your work in the public domain. Thank you!
>
> Two more things: First, Lintian runs on Perl. Did you ever port your
> program to any other languages? Second, I plan to rework the copyright
> check, which has many open bugs. Please let me know if are interested
> in helping:
>
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/blob/master/checks/debian/copyright.pm
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no=lintian
>
> Kind regards
> Felix Lechner
>

Bug#941774: marked as done (lintian: False positive for symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:24:40 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Re: Bug#941774: lintian: False positive for 
symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision
has caused the Debian Bug report #941774,
regarding lintian: False positive for 
symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
941774: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=941774
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.24.0
Severity: normal

The current version of lintian on lintian.d.o generates false positives
for this test.  See 
https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/sc...@kitterman.com.html#libnitrokey
for an example.  The line in the symbols file that's referenced for
libnitrokey 3.5-1 is:

 (optional=templinst|arch=!amd64 !arm64 
!x32)_ZN8nitrokey5proto17ResponseDissectorILNS0_9CommandIDE0ERKNS0_14DeviceResponseILS2_0ENS0_7stick109GetStatus15ResponsePayload24status_translate_commandB5cxx11Ei@Base
 3.5

 No dash anywhere.  In fact, in only dashes in the entire symbols file
 are in the first three lines of the file:

 # SymbolsHelper-Confirmed: 3.5 alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf hppa i386 ia64 
m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32
libnitrokey.so.3 libnitrokey3 #MINVER#
* Build-Depends-Package: libnitrokey-dev

This appears to be a regression from 2.15.0 as when I run lintian
locally on a stable system, this error is not shown.  This is
superficially similar to #539066, but is a distinct problem not related
to the upstream version number.

Scott K
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Scott,

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:33 PM Scott Kitterman  wrote:
>
>  No dash anywhere.

The symbols file in the control section of
libnitrokey3_3.4.1-4+b1_amd64.deb contains the following lines:

$ fgrep -- -4 dir/symbols
 
_ZN8nitrokey5proto14QueryDissectorILNS0_9CommandIDE1ERKNS0_9HIDReportILS2_1ENS0_7stick1015WriteToTOTPSlot14CommandPayload7dissectB5cxx11ES9_@Base
3.4.1-4+b1
 
_ZNSt6vectorIhSaIhEE17_M_realloc_insertIJhEEEvN9__gnu_cxx17__normal_iteratorIPhS1_EEDpOT_@Base
3.4.1-4+b1

Those two symbols show Debian revisions. Lintian is right.

As far as I can tell, that matches Lintian's output. The rate limit on
shared symbols cannot currently be turned off.

$ frontend/lintian --no-tag-display-limit
../bugs/symbols/libnitrokey3_3.4.1-4+b1_amd64.deb
E: libnitrokey3:
symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol
_ZN8nitrokey5proto14QueryDissectorILNS0_9CommandIDE1ERKNS0_9HIDReportILS2_1ENS0_7stick1015WriteToTOTPSlot14CommandPayload7dissectB5cxx11ES9_@Base
and 1 others
I: libnitrokey3: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnitrokey.so.3.4.1 pacH patch

I am not sure why some symbols were decoded properly using the
appropriate pattern [1], while the offender is raw 'c++'. Did you mix
C and C++ symbols in the same shared library?

Closing this bug. Please reopen if you think that I made a mistake.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles--- End Message ---

Bug#941774: lintian: False positive for symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Ross,

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 8:39 PM Ross Vandegrift  wrote:
>
> I'm seeing a similar false positive:

I do not. The symbols file in the control section of
libephysics1_1.21.1-5+b1_amd64.deb contains the following line:

$ fgrep -- -5 dir2/symbols
 
_ZNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEE12_M_constructIPcEEvT_S7_St20forward_iterator_tag@Base
1.21.1-5+b1

The symbol shows a Debian revision. Lintian is right.

The line furthermore matches Lintian's output:

$ frontend/lintian --no-tag-display-limit
../bugs/symbols/libephysics1_1.21.1-5+b1_amd64.deb
E: libephysics1:
symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol
_ZNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEE12_M_constructIPcEEvT_S7_St20forward_iterator_tag@Base
N: 1 tag overridden (1 warning)

This is not a bug in Lintian (at least not anymore). I will close this
bug after writing to Scott, as well.

As a side note, I was surprised to find 188 additional Debian revisions:

$ fgrep -- -0~eo dir2/symbols | head -5
 ephysics_body_angular_movement_enable_get@Base 1.21.1-0~eo
 ephysics_body_angular_movement_enable_set@Base 1.21.1-0~eo
 ephysics_body_angular_velocity_get@Base 1.21.1-0~eo
 ephysics_body_angular_velocity_set@Base 1.21.1-0~eo
 ephysics_body_back_boundary_add@Base 1.21.1-0~eo

$ fgrep -- -0~eo dir2/symbols | wc -l
188

Finally, I am not sure why some symbols were decoded properly using
the appropriate pattern [1], while the offender is raw 'c++'. Did you
mix C and C++ symbols in the same shared library?

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles

Bug#864997: DEP-5 copyright checker

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Luke,

> so i wrote a program called copyright_check.py which covers every single
> possibility of what is correctly matched, what is incorrectly matched,
> and what is missing.

That's great! I have been looking for such a tool.

> copies of the original program are being made and distributed arbitrarily.
> one such copy (which ironically violates copyright) is here:
> https://fossies.org/dox/drizzle-7.2.4-alpha/copyright__check_8py_source.html
>
> one version may also be found here:
> https://github.com/jaredly/pyjamas/blob/master/contrib/copyright_check.py

Does it violate your copyright or someone else's? I see an assertion
of your authorship only in the second file. Neither file shows license
terms.

For Debian's benefit, would you please reply with a statement that the
program is solely your work? Please also attach a copy (not a link) or
alternatively, a pointer to a repository under your control. The copy
you send must further include the terms of your DFSG-compliant license
(preferably GPL-2+, which would be like Lintian) or a statement
placing your work in the public domain. Thank you!

Two more things: First, Lintian runs on Perl. Did you ever port your
program to any other languages? Second, I plan to rework the copyright
check, which has many open bugs. Please let me know if are interested
in helping:


https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/blob/master/checks/debian/copyright.pm
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no=lintian

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Processed: your mail

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> tags 907727 - moreinfo
Bug #907727 [lintian] lintian: Drop tag source-contains-empty-directory
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
907727: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907727
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Bug#907727 marked as pending in lintian

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 pending
Bug #907727 [lintian] lintian: Drop tag source-contains-empty-directory
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
907727: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907727
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: retitle

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> retitle 907727 lintian: Drop tag source-contains-empty-directory
Bug #907727 [lintian] source-contains-empty-directory when a patch adds a file 
to that directory
Changed Bug title to 'lintian: Drop tag source-contains-empty-directory' from 
'source-contains-empty-directory when a patch adds a file to that directory'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
907727: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907727
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#907727: Empty directory is already present in orig tarball

[Russ Allbery]

Felix Lechner  writes:

> It is actionable in that we can contact upstream (if the project is
> alive), but it will not improve the relationship. The tag is a
> widespread problem in the archive and a nuisance to many people. The tag
> should be removed. May I please retitle this bug?

Sure, yes, please go ahead.  After thinking about this some more, I agree
with your reasoning.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Bug#907727: Empty directory is already present in orig tarball

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Russ,

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:40 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
> To me, an override implies that Lintian is wrong, and I don't think it
> is.

Why did you file a bug report? Please use an override. :)

Joking aside, I do not think you are right. An override indicates the
maintainer will not address something. When Lintian is wrong, people
file bug reports.

> (Whether the tag should exist is a different question; not all
> problems are worth fixing.)

The tag is not well-named, but its assertion is undisputed: The
upstream sources contain an empty directory.

Since your upstream is gone there is nothing you can do about it. You
should override it (caveat below).

> It's otherwise unactionable by the maintainer.

It is actionable in that we can contact upstream (if the project is
alive), but it will not improve the relationship. The tag is a
widespread problem in the archive and a nuisance to many people. The
tag should be removed. May I please retitle this bug?

> It's bad practice to ship empty directories
> in tarballs precisely because they're not representable in Git (and
> generally have a tendency to get lost in various ways).

I do not think it is necessarily bad practice to include empty
directories in tarballs, although I would not do so personally. They
are superfluous and should be ignored. If git, pristine-tar or other
tools cannot deal with them in ways that work for their users, those
are bugs over there.

> It means that if anything relied on the directory existing, the directory
> would be recreated by unpacking the source package and whatever relied on
> that would succeed.

Lintian can technically suppress the tag when a file is added the way
you describe (by comparing the patched index against the unpatched
index), but it would go against the spirit of the tag: Upstream
shipped an empty folder. No maintainer addition can change that.

As a side note, I disagree on the use of a placeholder. If the tag is
not removed, I would use an override instead.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Bug#848825: Overrides behave as intended

[Jérémy Lal]

Le sam. 14 déc. 2019 à 19:14, Felix Lechner  a
écrit :

> Hi Jérémy,
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jérémy Lal  wrote:
> >
> >  I saw that lintian has been recently fixed with respect to how overrides
> > were parsed/applied.
>
> I am happy to hear that those changes worked.
>
> > Thanks for the hard work !
>
> Anytime. Why do you add a minified file via patch? And where did you
> get it from?
>

I removed the minified file and added the source as patch.
I think i have put the origin of the file somewhere, either in
debian/copyright or in
the patch description.



>
> Kind regards
> Felix Lechner
>

Bug#848825: Overrides behave as intended

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Jérémy,

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jérémy Lal  wrote:
>
>  I saw that lintian has been recently fixed with respect to how overrides
> were parsed/applied.

I am happy to hear that those changes worked.

> Thanks for the hard work !

Anytime. Why do you add a minified file via patch? And where did you
get it from?

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Bug#848825: marked as done (lintian: Does not apply source-is-missing overrides unless path has wildcard)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:16:47 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Overrides behave as intended
has caused the Debian Bug report #848825,
regarding lintian: Does not apply source-is-missing overrides unless path has 
wildcard
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
848825: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=848825
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.49
Severity: normal

This doesn't override anything:

source/lintian-overrides
source-is-missing deps/v8/benchmarks/regexp.js
source-is-missing doc/api_assets/sh_javascript.min.js
source-is-missing test/fixtures/throws_error5.js
source-is-missing test/fixtures/throws_error6.js

and it lists those overrides as unused.

This does work as intended:
source/lintian-overrides
source-is-missing deps/v8/benchmarks/regexp.js*
source-is-missing doc/api_assets/sh_javascript.min.js*
source-is-missing test/fixtures/throws_error5.js*
source-is-missing test/fixtures/throws_error6.js*

Cheers,

Jérémy.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii  binutils  2.27.51.20161212-1
ii  bzip2 1.0.6-8
ii  diffstat  1.61-1
ii  file  1:5.29-2
ii  gettext   0.19.8.1-1
ii  intltool-debian   0.35.0+20060710.4
ii  libapt-pkg-perl   0.1.30
ii  libarchive-zip-perl   1.59-1
ii  libclass-accessor-perl0.34-1
ii  libclone-perl 0.38-2+b1
ii  libdpkg-perl  1.18.17
ii  libemail-valid-perl   1.202-1
ii  libfile-basedir-perl  0.07-1
ii  libipc-run-perl   0.94-1
ii  liblist-moreutils-perl0.416-1+b1
ii  libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12
ii  libperl5.24 [libdigest-sha-perl]  5.24.1~rc4-1
ii  libtext-levenshtein-perl  0.13-1
ii  libtimedate-perl  2.3000-2
ii  liburi-perl   1.71-1
ii  libyaml-libyaml-perl  0.63-1+b1
ii  man-db2.7.6.1-2
ii  patchutils0.3.4-2
ii  perl  5.24.1~rc4-1
ii  t1utils   1.39-2
ii  xz-utils  5.2.2-1.2

Versions of packages lintian recommends:
ii  dpkg 1.18.17
ii  libautodie-perl  2.29-2
ii  libperlio-gzip-perl  0.19-1+b2
ii  perl 5.24.1~rc4-1
ii  perl-modules-5.24 [libautodie-perl]  5.24.1~rc4-1

Versions of packages lintian suggests:
ii  binutils-multiarch 2.27.51.20161212-1
ii  dpkg-dev   1.18.17
ii  libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3
ii  libtext-template-perl  1.46-1

-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: tags -1 + wontfix

Hi Jérémy,

> This doesn't override anything:

As far as I can tell from looking at nodejs_10.17.0~dfsg-2.dsc, the
overrides behave as intended.

Some tags of the type 'source-is-missing' (but not all) include
additional information. That usually happens for more generic tags,
for example those for spelling. Overrides must distinguish those
different instances and therefore require the additional information
in the override. In the present case they did not.

As you pointed out, the override file works because of the asterisks:

$ more nodejs-10.17.0~dfsg/debian/source/lintian-overrides
# false positives
source-is-missing test/fixtures/assert-long-line*
source-is-missing deps/v8/benchmarks/regexp*
source-is-missing test/fixtures/throws_error*
# removed and restored as a patch, false positive
source-is-missing doc/api_assets/sh_javascript.min.js

For the last tag, Lintian issues no additional details, and the
override takes as intended. The overrides were already adjusted, so I
will close this bug.

For the record, here is a partial Lintian output:

N: false positives
O: nodejs source: source-is-missing deps/v8/benchmarks/regexp.js line
length is 2305 characters (>512)
N: removed and restored as a patch, false positive
O: nodejs source: source-is-missing doc/api_assets/sh_javascript.min.js
N: 

Processed: your mail

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> forcemerge 844274 761199
Bug #844274 {Done: Chris Lamb } [lintian] 
wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright should not be raised for deleted 
files
Bug #844274 {Done: Chris Lamb } [lintian] 
wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright should not be raised for deleted 
files
Marked as found in versions lintian/2.5.26.
Bug #761199 {Done: Felix Lechner } [lintian] 
lintian: false positive of wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright if files 
are removed by a Debian patches
Marked as fixed in versions lintian/2.41.0.
Marked as found in versions lintian/2.5.49.
Added tag(s) patch.
Merged 761199 844274
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
761199: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761199
844274: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=844274
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#761199: marked as done (lintian: false positive of wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright if files are removed by a Debian patches)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:25:18 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Resolved in another bug; merging and closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #761199,
regarding lintian: false positive of wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright 
if files are removed by a Debian patches
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
761199: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761199
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.26
Severity: normal

[This bug is different than #761125.]

Dear Maintainer,

if the orig tarball contains some files, which are removed by a Debian 
patch, they still have to be mentioned in debian/copyright, but then 
lintian reports wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright.


I'm not sure if lintian could detect this easily, but if not, I think it 
would be good to mention this class of false positives in the tag 
description, e.g.:
There can be legitimate reasons to mention files in debian/copyright, 
which are not present in the unpacked source, e.g. when they are removed 
by Debian patches.


Best regards,
Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: forcemerge 844274 -1

Hi Andreas,

> [This bug is different than #761125.]

But it is the same as #844274, which was resolved recently and before
I saw this one.

Merging and closing.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Bug#755355: marked as done (lintian: Check for use of pyqtconfig)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:06:23 -0800
with message-id 

and subject line Too late; affected packages are being removed from the archive.
has caused the Debian Bug report #755355,
regarding lintian: Check for use of pyqtconfig
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
755355: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=755355
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.25
Severity: wishlist

For applications that use python-qt4, pyqtconfig has been the standard way to
access attributes about the PyQt4 installation.  Upstream has decided to drop
this for alternate methodes.  For now, we can continue to use the upstream
legacy configure that still generates it, but post-Jessie, users of pyqtconfig
are going to have to be updated.

I thought it would be prudent to have a lintian tag now to warn maintainers
that this is coming in the future.  There are nearly 100 reverse-depends of
python-qt4 and many of them (I got tired of looking) will have a problem with
this.

I am happy to try and help implement this, but I've never done anything with
lintian before, so I'll need some guidance.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: tags -1 + wontfix

Hi,

According to #debian-python, the packages affected by this tag are in
the process of being removed from the archive. The tag was probably
supposed to help with that process. It is too late. The tag is no
longer needed.

I also spotted 'PyQt5.pyqtconfig' on codesearch.d.n but am unfamiliar
with Python. Please reopen this bug if anything remains to be done.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner--- End Message ---

Processed: Bug#471537 marked as pending in lintian

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 pending
Bug #471537 [lintian] lintian: Please check for repackaged .orig.tar.gz
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
471537: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=471537
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems